L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) ACCUSED Joginder Tuli has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint Annexure P/1 and order Annexure P/2 passed by the trial Magistrate. Respondent-complainant Karamjit Singh has filed criminal complaint Annexure P/1 against the petitioner-accused under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) regarding dishonouring of the cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner-accused.
(2.) LEARNED Magistrate vide order Annexure P/2 has found prima facie case against the petitioner-accused under section 138 of the Act and has accordingly served notice of accusation. Counsel for the respondent stated that no reply is required to be filed and he is ready for arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 8.11.2011 which is reproduced hereunder:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and another Vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd.', reported in 2009(1) SCC 720 as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in 'Dushyat Verma Vs. Tek Chand', in Crl. M.C. No. 3531 of 2010 and Crl. M.A. No. 17307 of 2010, decided on 20.08.2011, has argued that cheque in question was issued in Delhi; petitioner has bank account in Delhi. Cheque was dishonoured by the Delhi Bank, therefore, Kurukshetra Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Notice of motion for 15.02.2012. Let respondent be served dasti in addition to normal mode of service as well as through his counsel, who is appearing on his behalf before the trial court, for the date fixed. Trial court shall adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court." Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention mentioned in the motion order. Counsel for respondent on the other hand contended that order of the trial Magistrate whereby similar plea taken by the petitioner regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was rejected has not been challenged. The contention cannot be accepted. According to averments in para 5 of the petition, the trial court ignored the aforesaid contention raised by the accused and ordered framing of charge (notice of accusation) vide order Annexure P/2 which is under challenge in this petition. There is no plea by the respondent-complainant that there is any other order passed by the Magistrate rejecting plea of the accused regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent could not controvert the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that the trial court at Pehowa has no territorial jurisdiction to try the impugned complaint. The cheque in question was issued in Delhi and petitioner has bank account in Delhi and the cheque was also dishonoured at Delhi. Consequently, the court at Pehowa has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
(3.) RESULTANTLY , the instant petition is allowed. Impugned criminal complaint Annexure P/1 and order Annexure P/2 are set aside with liberty to the respondent to file fresh complaint against the petitioner in court of competent jurisdiction, if so permissible under the law.;